My travel thread

[northshorepom]

They also told me about the 33% tax. Just ridiculous. Discourages all the young overseas people from working. Who's bright idea was that?

 

It's an idiotic proposal

 

Federal treasury seems to be staffed with complete incompetents. There never seems to be any thought given to the likely consequences either short- or long-term of their tax proposals, it's just an equation about how much revenue they currently think they are "losing"

 

Oddly, this refusal to contemplate consequences *doesn't* appear to apply to some of the sacred cows. Like negative gearing on property, where all sorts of drivel is talked about the catastrophe that will unfold, should the government stop subsidising the people who need subsidy the least, in the sector that needs it the least.

 

The backpacker tax is just braindead. They won't gain much if any additional revenue, they'll just put people off. So a tiny benefit in tax receipts, to offset the big disbenefit in terms of backpackers' spending in the economy and a hard time for farmers trying to get harvests in without a pool of seasonal labour to be tapped into. Genius

:wub:

[northshorepom]

Well, economic theory would suggest that if there is a shortage of labour, the wages would have to increase. This in turn would lead to higher prices at the farm gate, and higher retail prices. But it should not lead to crops rotting in the fields.

 

It will only lead to higher retail prices if people will pay them. A reduction in sales would also therefore be expected, with more pressure on domestic producers from the supermarkets (to suck up lower margins), and the potential where biosecurity/protectionist rules aren't in place, to pull in more imports

[Quinkla]

It will only lead to higher retail prices if people will pay them. A reduction in sales would also therefore be expected, with more pressure on domestic producers from the supermarkets (to suck up lower margins), and the potential where biosecurity/protectionist rules aren't in place, to pull in more imports

Correct, although in the case of fruit, the supply is effectively set a year ahead of retail sales so it would take time to arrive at a new balance. The point, though, is that the casual workers would not necessarily bear the full cost of the new tax unless they were working in an industry with a massive over-supply of workers (like in California in the depression).

[flag of convenience]

I've still got Brisbane to Adelaide to cover and then I want to do the west coast. I'd love to see Uluru too if I can but I doubt I'll manage to see all of that

 

But you've been West. Only place really missed this way was The Kimberly's. Probably my favourite part of Australia, but hardly cheap. There is/was plenty of Backpacker work in Broome when last there. All the girls I spoke with waitressing seemed to enjoy it there very much.

 

Brisbane you are not far of hitting. Adelaide.. well I'd go Melbourne to Tasmania if I were you and see what's in the tank left after that. Better to really get to know a few places well, than go to quick IMO. Although from Adelaide easy to get up to Uluru. Just share costs in a Back packer van. I imagine as in days past, they are always on the look out for people to share costs and driving. You could trade off the non driving bit by doing the cooking or something like that.

[flag of convenience]

It's an idiotic proposal

 

Federal treasury seems to be staffed with complete incompetents. There never seems to be any thought given to the likely consequences either short- or long-term of their tax proposals, it's just an equation about how much revenue they currently think they are "losing"

 

Oddly, this refusal to contemplate consequences *doesn't* appear to apply to some of the sacred cows. Like negative gearing on property, where all sorts of drivel is talked about the catastrophe that will unfold, should the government stop subsidising the people who need subsidy the least, in the sector that needs it the least.

 

The backpacker tax is just braindead. They won't gain much if any additional revenue, they'll just put people off. So a tiny benefit in tax receipts, to offset the big disbenefit in terms of backpackers' spending in the economy and a hard time for farmers trying to get harvests in without a pool of seasonal labour to be tapped into. Genius

:wub:

 

Yes. Pretty much broad agreement on this occasion. Although I consider the number of WHV's at I believe 200,000 too high and competes with local youth for jobs.

 

The other thing negative gearing unless corrected is creating a major problem a little further down the road. An outrageous subsidy that favours speculators over those wanting a home for traditional purposes and putting the cost out of reach.

 

The insanity of this nation knows few bounds, I'm afraid.

[Gbye grey sky]

Well, economic theory would suggest that if there is a shortage of labour, the wages would have to increase. This in turn would lead to higher prices at the farm gate, and higher retail prices. But it should not lead to crops rotting in the fields.

 

That assumes there will be backpackers here after July to take up the jobs (unless higher wages can attract more Australians). Many backpackers I am sure will be put off even arriving in Oz once they are fully aware of this and will travel elsewhere instead. I doubt if producers can bear the brunt of this and would not be able to pass on all the costs to the retailers I suspect.

 

Backpackers generally spend 100% of their earnings (plus any money that they bring) while here so any major fall in numbers will have a further knock-on effect on the economy as a whole.

 

If crops have to be left to rot with supermarkets filling the gap with cheaper imports then this will be a massive own-goal.

[flag of convenience]

That assumes there will be backpackers here after July to take up the jobs (unless higher wages can attract more Australians). Many backpackers I am sure will be put off even arriving in Oz once they are fully aware of this and will travel elsewhere instead. I doubt if producers can bear the brunt of this and would not be able to pass on all the costs to the retailers I suspect.

 

Backpackers generally spend 100% of their earnings (plus any money that they bring) while here so any major fall in numbers will have a further knock-on effect on the economy as a whole.

 

If crops have to be left to rot with supermarkets filling the gap with cheaper imports then this will be a massive own-goal.

 

Yes it must one imagines have a negative flow on effect. Why would anyone put up with such conditions and at times harsh treatment for little money? Far better off staying in Asia and giving the Rip Off Land Down Under a wide berth.

[JockinTas]

It's an idiotic proposal

 

Federal treasury seems to be staffed with complete incompetents. There never seems to be any thought given to the likely consequences either short- or long-term of their tax proposals, it's just an equation about how much revenue they currently think they are "losing"

 

Oddly, this refusal to contemplate consequences *doesn't* appear to apply to some of the sacred cows. Like negative gearing on property, where all sorts of drivel is talked about the catastrophe that will unfold, should the government stop subsidising the people who need subsidy the least, in the sector that needs it the least.

 

The backpacker tax is just braindead. They won't gain much if any additional revenue, they'll just put people off. So a tiny benefit in tax receipts, to offset the big disbenefit in terms of backpackers' spending in the economy and a hard time for farmers trying to get harvests in without a pool of seasonal labour to be tapped into. Genius

:wub:

 

So agree with your 2nd paragraph .................................. and everything else you say.

[JockinTas]

*Sorry for rail-roading your travel thread Stacey* :embarrassed:

[Keith and Linda]

But you've been West. Only place really missed this way was The Kimberly's. Probably my favourite part of Australia, but hardly cheap. There is/was plenty of Backpacker work in Broome when last there. All the girls I spoke with waitressing seemed to enjoy it there very much.

 

Brisbane you are not far of hitting. Adelaide.. well I'd go Melbourne to Tasmania if I were you and see what's in the tank left after that. Better to really get to know a few places well, than go to quick IMO. Although from Adelaide easy to get up to Uluru. Just share costs in a Back packer van. I imagine as in days past, they are always on the look out for people to share costs and driving. You could trade off the non driving bit by doing the cooking or something like that.

 

Stacey, not often I agree with flag, but I would go with him on this one. also keep a close watch out for the bargain airfares from Brisbane or Gold Coast, Jetstar has a Friday frenzy at about 11pm, not sure that Uluro would be in them but Adelaide and Melbourne often are.

Though I am not in the know but I would have thought work in Brisbane/Gold Coast would be readily available for backpackers, I also thought the back packer hostels had a ready supply of job vacancies around the area.

Good luck with whatever you do and most of all keep enjoying, live for the moment and stop worrying about things they will come good when really needed.

[Guest The Pom Queen]

I'll probably catch it for saying this but I thought Uluru was hugely overrated. Very expensive out there too ...................... and the heat and the bloody flies :sad: I went with my sister when she was here for a visit and she enjoyed it.

I have never been but heard the same, costs a fortune to see a huge rock

[Guest The Pom Queen]

Well, economic theory would suggest that if there is a shortage of labour, the wages would have to increase. This in turn would lead to higher prices at the farm gate, and higher retail prices. But it should not lead to crops rotting in the fields.

Farmers can't afford to pay higher rates. Some farmers in the outback can't even afford to feed cattle or themselves. It's a mess out there. There are trucks leaving the coast on a regular basis to donate feed but there isn't enough. It's just another kick in the teeth for them.

[JockinTas]

I have never been but heard the same, costs a fortune to see a huge rock

 

It was really windy when we were at Uluru - dust flying everywhere and every time my sister wanted to take a smiling picture of me the red dirt stuck to my teeth :eek:

[Guest The Pom Queen]

I think in a year you could cover a fair bit. Depends on how much you think worth seeing and at what cost, I expect. You've already covered Sydney/ Outback South West WA/ Perth/ FNQ / NQ/ and soon Brisbane. A fair whack already.

I've told her this, 3 months and she has covered so much and missed an awful lot. Stacey you need to slow down, find a base for 3/6 months then hit the road again. Remember it's not a 2 week holiday you don't have to rush to fit everything in :hug:

[Quokka2005]

This east coast trip was never designed to be a really slow trip. I can't see everything especially not on my money. I still wouldn't have seen some of the stuff I have if I didn't have the van. If I was on greyhound I'd just be going from city to city and probably sleep most of the way. I'm quite pleased with the amount of stuff I've got to see so far - we've researched things on the way and stopped at several tourist information stuff and everyone likes different things. But I'll try slow down a bit now. Jakes thinking of keeping going to Melbourne and then go back to Darwin to work again because he's guaranteed work there again but I'll probably just stay in Brisbane if I like it enough. Otherwise I'd go to Melbourne but it would be a bit rushed.

[Quokka2005]

I'm in noosa. I'm really not sure about it.. It's very pretty but it's so busy! Even the tourist woman said she doesn't know where everyone came from because it's not usually this busy. The parking is awful and we couldn't find a campsite anywhere near the town so we had to stay in one quite a long way outside. I have a 6pm safety meeting for Fraser Island and both our trip meeting points at Wednesday are far from each other so I'm having to stay in the hostel for the night lol. Oh goody haha.

[Guest241083]

............are you in Noosa for long...?

[Quokka2005]

Flag I didn't go properly South either - I wanted to see Albany, esperance, Denmark etc. I didn't see Margaret river or bunbury either and I really wanted to go up north. I would love to see the red dog statue but that's way out in the middle of nowhere even in WA terms especially just for that lol

[Quokka2005]

And I don't mind people derailing the thread since I mentioned that subject first lol the government are idiots.

 

Tink - Im here tomorrow and then that's probably it after Fraser Island unless we stay another night. Is that where you live?

[Guest241083]

And I don't mind people derailing the thread since I mentioned that subject first lol the government are idiots.

 

Tink - Im here tomorrow and then that's probably it after Fraser Island unless we stay another night. Is that where you live?

 

 

..........no but it's not far........am there at the end of the week probably....

..........but never mind will catch you when you get further south....

[flag of convenience]

I have never been but heard the same, costs a fortune to see a huge rock

 

A bit of an icon but IMO another rip off. I lived in The Alice for a time, (not long) but deliberately avoided The Rock.

[flag of convenience]

Flag I didn't go properly South either - I wanted to see Albany, esperance, Denmark etc. I didn't see Margaret river or bunbury either and I really wanted to go up north. I would love to see the red dog statue but that's way out in the middle of nowhere even in WA terms especially just for that lol

 

I'm back down in Albany from next weekend as it happens. You could always leave the remainder of the West Coast for another trip. That trip could focus solely on The West. While I enjoy the Rainbow Coast, I'm not sure if I'd sacrifice time over East, while in position, and considering such limited funds. The North as I conveyed isn't cheap. But if you did manage a second year, then I'd say a definite consideration.

 

You forgot Ningaloo Reef a should visit as well.

[flag of convenience]

I've told her this, 3 months and she has covered so much and missed an awful lot. Stacey you need to slow down, find a base for 3/6 months then hit the road again. Remember it's not a 2 week holiday you don't have to rush to fit everything in :hug:

 

Definitely needs a base for a few months. Brisbane may be the place and from there could explore the Coasts. Possibly a shame to rush FNQ. One of only about three, possibly five at a push places that work for me in Australia. But we are all different. Lack and angst at funds running out no doubt the motivator for such rapid movement.

 

Hopefully work may prove rewarding in Brisbane. I had no idea work was getting a bit thin on the ground in that city, at least for the Backpacker fraternity.

[Quinkla]

Many backpackers I am sure will be put off even arriving in Oz once they are fully aware of this and will travel elsewhere instead.

I doubt most backpackers have the first idea about tax when they set out on their travels. It seems to me that the only people who worry about taxes are Tories - the rest of us just have them deducted from our wages and never give them a second thought.

[flag of convenience]

I doubt most backpackers have the first idea about tax when they set out on their travels. It seems to me that the only people who worry about taxes are Tories - the rest of us just have them deducted from our wages and never give them a second thought.

 

Agree, but they soon learn. The return was the carrot that kept a number going. Numbers being so great now, with an ever increasing number of nationalities entitled for a WHV, the impact may indeed not be as wide spread as in former times.

 

Of course in time past young foreigners worked for not much more than board and keep but had fun with not exactly taxing work for the most part, working on a Kibbutz in Israel. Not quite the same thing though.